The High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to consider the Representation, dt.1O.(.2025 made by the petitioners, through the 2nd Respondent, to enable the p€ t tioners to remit the balance amounts due and payable to the .lst Responl)nt and to enable registration of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners, by th€ Respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the House property bearing House No. MIC- /52, Housing Board Colony, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad; pending disposal of the \// it petition. Counsel forthe Petitioners: SRI P. ROy REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents No.1 & 2: SRI CHITTAM BUCIJ REDDY, S.C. FOR TELANGANA HOIJ }ING BOARD Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: Gp FOR HOUSING The Gourt made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY IVI{IT PETITION No.24393 OF 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 1,5.12.2025 Between: Anugu Venkata Ramana and another AND ..Petitioners The Telangana Housing Board, (fonnerly A.P. Housing Board), Represented by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, Gruha Kalpa, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad and others ORDER:(ORAL) ...Respondents This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of respondent No.l in not considering their representation dated 10.03.2025 pertaining to the property bearing H.No.MIG-I152, Housing Board Colony, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad, as being illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct respondent No.l to execute sale deed in'favour of the petitioners in respect of the subject property by receiving balance sale consideration payable by them.

2. Heard Mi.. P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. C.Buchi Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for Telangana State Housing Board, appearing for respondents No.l and 2; and perused the material on record. lIE \ 2 3 . The case of the petitioners is that the erstwhile Andll e Pradesh Housing Board had allotted a Residential House i.e. H.No.MIG-1i51 at A.P. Housing Board Colony, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad, vide Allotment L:: ter No'52/MIG-V 52lE4lEE-NzBl94 dated 28.01.1994 in favour of one Mr. D.Krishnamurthy (original allottee) and an agreement of sale dated 19.09. l9')'was executed in his favour in respect of the subject property with s I :cific boundaries mentioned therein. The original allottee transferred tht allotment to one Mr. L.Ashok on 12.08.1999 and Mr. L.Ashok, in nrm, trans i rred the allotment to the petitioners herein and agreernent of sale dated 0l .0.1 : I I I rvas executed in their favour. The petitioners paid total amount of Rs 8 20,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs twenty thousand only) to Mr. L.Ashok on 16.06'2011. The petitioners came to know that further sum of Rs.5,40 ( 001 (Rupees five lakhs forty thousand only) was to be paid by the allottee to t Le Housing Board. It is submitted that the petitioners had been visiting the t:f lce of respondent No.2 in connection with the registered sale deed to be exec I ed in their favour. That two employees of the Housing Board by name Mr R.Venkat Reddy (NMR:Worker in the office of respondent No.2) ani Mr. Moses Raju (now deceased - Superintendent, office of respondent "1o.2), regularly present at the office of respondent No.2, at Vinayaknagar, who were Nizamabad, collected an amount of Rs.8,40,000/- From the retitioners in cash, sayrng that the money will be remitted in favour of the Hot.: ing Board and that J they would do the needful. Under the bonafide belief that the issue would be legally processed, the petitioners paid the said amount to the aforesaid two persons. Thereafter, registered sale deed bearing document No.45l5 of 2001 dated 03.06.2011 was executed by respondent No.2 and one of the persons who signed the format as per.Section 32A in the said document was Mr. Moses Raju, who described himself as "Supdt. i.e., Supertntenclent, ffice of the Executive Engineer, APHB, Nizamabad" and his photograph was affixed in the said format along with his signature. . The photograph of the Executive Engineer (Housing) was also affixed and the witnesses to the said document are described as " Assistant Estate Officer, A.P. Housing Board, Nizamabacl and Superintendent, A.P. Housing Board, Nizamabad ". The name of the Executive Officer (Housing) who executed the said sale deed dated 03.06.2011 and who signed on behalf of the Housing Board was shown as ,,V.pitcheshwar Rao". Later, the petitioners came to know that Mr. Moses Raju retired as on the date of the execution of sale deed and had been reengaged on contract basis.

4. It is submitted that the petitioners had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subj ect property since 201 l. Later, respondent No.2 filed O.S. No.512 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, against the petitioners alleging that fiaud has been played on them and the registered sale deed bearing document No.4515 of 2011 dated 4

03.06.2011 is not binding on them. Further, Crime Nc. '.65 of 2021 was registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for s rort 'IPC') by the IV Town Police Station, Nizamabad, wherein the petitionerr; rnd Mr. R.Venkat Reddy are accused; charge sheet has been filed on the file c I the Court of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamat ad (for short 'trial Cotrl') vide C.C.No.819 of 2022 and the same is pending It : trial. It is stated that under the bonafide belief that the petitioners were dea ing with genuine officials of the Housing Board and that the sale deed dat: I 03.06.2011 was genuinely executed by the Housing Board, they entered ir t > this transaction. That as per the 'Abstract' dated 03.02.2025 frled in O.S. No.512 of 2021, the total amount payable to the Housing Board in resp t :t of the subject property is Rs.7,31,024i- (Rupees seven lakhs thirty one tlt usand and twenty four only) as on 31.05.2024 and the petitioners are willin I to pay the said amount. It is further submitted that on 23.07 .202 1 , the pet 1 oners remifted an amount of Rs.5 ,72,6001- (Rupees five lakhs seventy two th l rsand six hundred only) which is the due amount payable to the Housing . ioard. From the abstract, it is clear that the amount of Rs.5,72,6001- payabl: by the petitioners to the Housing Board has been given credit and the total amt rnt payable by the petitioners is Rs.7,31,024l- as on 3 1.05.2024 which includes nterest.

5. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted tha the outstanding amount whatsoever payable by the petitioners will be prLi I to the Housing 5 Board including the additional costs towards excess land. It is submitted that the petitioners submitted representarion dated 10.03.2025 to respondent No. I through the office of respondent No.2 requesting that they may be allowed to pay the balance amounts due to the Housing Board. That the petitioners have also filed Memo dated 02.05.2025 in O.S. No.5l2 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Nizamabad, referring to G.O.Ms.No.67 and placing on record their willingness to pay the balance amount towards sale consideration and also 7o/o Transfer Fee calculated on {he present Market Value-

6. Leamed Standing Counsel for TSHB submitted that the petitioners are facing criminal prosecution in C.C. No.8l9 of 2022 on the file of the learned trial Court and thus, they are not entitled for registration of sale deed. Unless the criminal case is decided and the matter reaches a logical conclusion, the representation of the petitioners cannot be considered.

7. This Court, upon hearing both the learned counsel, passed interim order dated 17.11.2025 directing the petitioners ro take necessary steps so that the suit frled by thg Housing Board is decreed. Memo dated 08.12.2025 has been filed by the petitioners which shows that the petitioners filed affidavit dated

28.11.2025 requesting the trial Cou( to pass decree in O.S. No.5l2 of 2021. 6 The docket proceedings of the trial Court are also placeJ on record, which shows that the suit filed by the Housing Board was decreed < o 05.12.2025

8. In the opinion of this Court, pendency of the crimirLi I case cannot be a ground not to consider the representation of the petitioner:, rnd to execute the sale deed. The original allottee transferred the allotment b Mr. L.Ashok who in tum transferred the same to the petitioners. As per G.O I Is. No.67, transfer of allotment is pennissible. So long as original allotn r rt is lound to be genuine and the transfer is permissible as per G.O.Ms. Nc 67, the request of the petitioners for execution of the registered sale deed ar I consideration of their representation cannot be refused. May be, the sale dr < I was executed by incompetent persons. It is the case of the petitioners that tr )y were misguided by the executants and the sale deed was got executed. ,\; the things stand, the petitioners reconciled to the fact that the sale deec was fraudulently executed. If the petitioners had committed any offence, it i for the trial Court to punish them in accordance with law. However, so far ir the interest of the petitioners over the subject property is concemed, it is not n dispute that they have paid the part sale consideration to the allottee/subserl Lent transferee and they are ready to pay the balance sale consideration tl respondent No.2. Thus, the contention of respondent No.2 that the reque:1 of the petitioners cannot be considered, is unacceptable. 7

9. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners in C.C. No.8l9 of 2022 are compoundable and in view of the decree in O.S. No.512 of 2021 passed in favour of the Housing Board, the dispute is resolved; that necessary steps would be taken to get the criminal case compounded under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') or quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

10. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.l is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 10.03.2025 by taking note of the affidavit filed by the petitioners before the trial Court for decreeing the suit in O.S. No.5l2 of 2021 filed by the TSHB and the undertaking given by the petitioners that they are ready to pay the balance sale consideration. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, stand closed. SD/.A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / ,/ To 1 . The Vice (formerly, Hydera6a Chairman and A.P. Housin d //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER J"H:Lgr*8iliT'"Rli;J"'f, irr'"f, J?I.,1,?,ii3fi; 'il:,il?5JJi"n=B3,l,:%r'""1i1$,#r5*.il,.j!g,,r,ifl*.g;:T"r,ApHousins t Housins Department, state or reransana, I:3r",:ii:i'?-,Xo"nt""o%Et"o' _O1_ 9" to SRr p. Roy REDDY, Advocate [OpUC] o_ 7 5 One CC to SRI CHITTAM BUCHI REDDY' S C for 'elangana Housing Board IOPUC] Two CCs to GP for Housing, High Court for the Sta e of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] b 7 Two CD CoPies MP BS ,W I CC TODAY .{IGH COURT DATT D:15/1212025 \ (J I J,j 0E[ ',i "a/, '\.113r1i: -.: . . !-\!iii .l' fr ORDER WP.No.24393 of 2025 ALLOWING THE V\ RIT PETITION WI'I HOUT COSTS n0